english

As much as we might like Călin Popescu Tăriceanu, truth be told, according to the law he has not earned the parliamentary mandate.
As is well known, in Ilfov, where Călin Popescu Tăriceanu ran for Parliament (in the 4th College), the Prime Minister was 18 votes behind his party colleague, Stefan Hubert Thuma (who ran for the Third College).
As the liberals have only won a single mandate for the Ilfov county, it was supposed to go to Thuma.
At least that's what the law requires.
Eliminating Tăriceanu from Parliament would have seriously derailed the post-electoral negotiations for the formation of the Government.
The sleight of hand which helped Tăriceanu earn a deputy mandate, at Thuma's expense, consists of the fact that the names for the mandates earned by the parties were not allotted on a county level, as the law requires, but rather on a national level, which means it's a whole different ballgame.
Thus, on the national distribution level, PDL has earned two Ilfov mandates. The algorithm distributed the second PDL mandate to the Third College, that of Thuma and thus, Tăriceanu's colleague was eliminated, leaving the mandate allotted to PNL for the 4th college available.
That is, for Tăriceanu.
This is how Tăriceanu entered the Parliament, even though Thuma received more votes.
Ştefan Hubert Thuma is keeping quiet. He most likely considers that it would not be in his best interest (nor in PNL's best interest) to make a fuss.
But, it's also likely that he hasn't understood how he came to be eliminated and that this operation broke the law.
Besides, this infringement of the law (a law which is convoluted and hard to follow anyway) rests on a minor detail and nuance which are present in paragraph 14, article 48, thesis 4.
Who lost
PSD,  PD-L and PNL each obtained one mandate in that county, because each of them had “one point something" percent, and, by removing the decimals, (and only considering the whole number), each of them gets one mandate per electoral circumscription (county). According to the law (paragraph 14, article 48), the distribution of the mandates was supposed to match the following scheme: Gabriel Oprea from PSD (first college), Mircea Marin (second college). The third score was obtained by Mihaela Şandru, also from PD-L, but this party had already exhausted its number of mandates, on a circumscription level, just like PSD. Thus, the following mandate was to be allotted to the PNL candidate, Ştefan Hubert Thuma, who got 18 votes more than Călin Popescu Tăriceanu. The last mandate (which was to go to PD-L, more specifically to Sorin Minea, of the Fourth College, where Tăriceanu ran) was supposed to be allotted during the second stage, meaning on a national level.
But BEC (Central Electoral Bureau) took a different approach, thus changing the outcome for this circumscription.
At the BEC, two candidates lost their mandates, even though they had won them, and they were replaced by two candidates who had actually lost the election.
Note: Data processing was done in cooperation with the team of www.vot.ro

Note
The election quota at the circumscription level is determined by dividing the number of votes obtained by the parties that passed the election threshold (the so called useful votes) by the number of colleges (in our current case, four colleges). Then, by dividing the total number of votes obtained by each party that passed the election threshold (PSD, PD-L, PNL and UDMR), to the election quota of the circumscription, we get the number of mandates that each party gets, for that circumscription, by keeping just the main percentage without the decimals, which go over to the national stage to be allocated in the second stage.
In our case, the data can be seen in the following